Originally posted by PalynkaI read the stanford site a few months back, and then tried again a few weeks ago. tuff stuff, but I think you summed it up well.
This says it better than I ever could:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/
...but I'll try to sum it up. 🙂
In short non-cognitivism denies that moral statements are true or false. Saying that A is wrong is not expressing a proposition about a characteristic of A, but simply expressing your disapproval of A.
So if I say that killi ...[text shortened]... a world with as little killing as possible. Not that killing has property called "wrongness".
Have you read Firestone?
Originally posted by duecerOnly three groups of people here or anywhere in my view... old friends (gold),
Some people here like to draw clear lines and pick "sides". If you don't agree with them, then you must be on the other side, if you neither agree or disagree people will accuse you of fence sittng or being wishy washy, for not engaging in the backyard mudslinging contest.
To all you boobs out there who expect me to play favorites or choose sides, great! I ...[text shortened]... n't like it. I am my own person, I like who I like, I ignore who I don't.
So suck it!
new friends (silver) and almost friends (bronze, tin and other resistant alloys).
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbythat's a very subjective view. suppose X is an old frend of A, a new friend of B, an 'almost friend' (whatever that is) of C, a stranger to D, and an enemy of E. is X gold, silver, bronze, tin, some other 'resistant alloy' (whatever that is), or what?
Only three groups of people here or anywhere in my view... old friends (gold),
new friends (silver) and almost friends (bronze, tin and other resistant alloys).